[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 07 March 2008 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E8828C5B2; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.345, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cq7e-lWZKq8H; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2B73A681A; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6AA28C2B2; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWUQQRHCzKFy; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [81.187.30.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD773A6929; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 247.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.247] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1JXgzK-0002mb-Ea; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:08:10 +0000
Message-ID: <47D18547.4050905@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:11:19 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (Version: ClamAV 0.92/6166/Fri Mar 7 16:36:07 2008, by smtp.aaisp.net.uk)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, jimsch@exmsft.com, smime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, smime-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.


Document: draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 7 March 2008
IETF LC End Date: 7 March 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:
Mostly fine except for a piece of unclear specification noted below and 
a few editorial nits.
Caveat: I am not a security expert and this should not be taken as an 
endorsement of the security competence of the proposal.

Comments:
s3:  The first part of the specification for MultipleSignatures is :

>    The fields in MultipleSignatures have the following meaning:
>
>      - bodyHashAlg includes the digest algorithmIdentifier for the
>      referenced multiple-signatures attribute.
>
>      - signAlg includes the signature algorithmIdentifier for the
>      referenced multiple-signatures attribute.
>
I am confused by the use of 'includes' here: Do these specs imply that 
the values of these fields are comma separated lists of all relevant alg 
identifiers for the signatures?  An example with three signatures might 
clarify what is going on, but the spec should be clarified in any case, 
I think (but I may just not be sufficiently knowledgable about this sort 
of spec).
 

Editorial:
idnits reports a clean bill of health.

Abstract: Expand CMS acronym.

s5: s/in a singled/in a single/

s5.2: s/the rquire application/the required application/

s5.3, para 5: The first sentence
>
> If signatures are added for the support of [ESS] features, then the
>    fact that an outer layer signature can be treated as a non-
>    significant failure.
>
does not parse.  Probably missing 'is invalid' or some such relating to 
outer layer signature.


Appendix B: 'hashes CMS'??? Does not parse!

B.1: s/is needed/are needed/

B.2 1/a/ii: s/Reistance/Resistance/

B.2 1/c/iii: s/success/successful/

B.2 2: Expand DER acronym.

B.2: is not normative but uses SHOULD NOT.

B.2 (2nd para on p18): s/that the attack/than the attack/



_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art